In principle, I agree that clarification is warranted. It took me a couple readings though to get over a feeling that there is something awry with the proposed paragraph to the Scope in the context of the preceding one. I finally realized that the existing paragraph (the 2nd) deals with "vanilla" editors who groom a text, in contrast with the editors of compilations in the proposed paragraph (the proposed 3rd). Also, the compilation of works already "effectively results in the creation of a new work" -- the aggregate -- so the proposed language introduces as much confusion as it is attempting to resolve. MYERS/CCDA liaison to the MAC, 2013/08/06

I also wonder if the existing last paragraph of the scope will need to be revisited in light of the EURIG discussion papers on aggregates. They would maintain that such "contributions" are in fact Works in their own right, combined at the Manifestation level into an aggregate. (Which I vaguely recall as a point of discussion in CCDA at one point -- I at least recall John Attig stating something to the effect of "How far do we go in rigidly pursuing the FRBR model?") MYERS/CCDA liaison to the MAC, 2013/08/06

I support the proposal. I agree with Kathy that added paragraph needs some editing and needs to be in sync with 19.2.1. For example,

Constituency responses

Editors of compilations are also considered to be contributors. An editor
of compilation may contribute to the expression of a work by selecting and
putting together a collective or aggregate work, provided this contribution
does not result in the creation of a new work. See 19.2.1 for a compiler
considered responsible for creating a new work (e.g., a bibliography, a
directory).